Which of the following best describes 'circumstantial evidence'?

Circumstantial evidence is best described as indirect evidence that suggests something occurred. This type of evidence infers a conclusion rather than providing direct proof of a fact. For example, if a person is found at a scene with wet shoes after it has been raining, it can suggest that they were outside during the rain, although it does not directly prove they were outside at a specific time or engaged in a specific activity.

In contrast, options that suggest eyewitness testimony or expert opinion are associated with different types of evidence. Eyewitness testimony provides direct support through personal observation, while expert opinion offers insight based on specialized knowledge but does not itself constitute direct evidence of a fact. Direct evidence, on the other hand, definitively proves a point without needing any interpretation or inference, which is not the nature of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the characterization of circumstantial evidence as indirect yet suggestive is what makes it the correct choice.